OOO
GOD
OOO

Higher being of humans or AI is always ever in our future, and never in the past, for more complexity only lies in the future and less only in the past.

TIC-TAC-TOE

But God is perfect and it would be an imperfection to have not existed for some time. So any god that comes into being won't qualify as God.
And God is all powerful, yet an all powerful being cannot depend on anything or anyone else for her existence as that would manifest a lack of power. So once more, a god who comes into being won't qualify as God.
Plus, God is by definition the creator and sustainer of everything, yet if he is created he won't be and thus he can't be created.

However this singularity is achieved it paves the way for omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence - God. — TheMadFool

Entropy is going to put a damper on that hope.

As long as your God is a physical being, he is going to have serious limitations that run contrary to most definitions of God. He'll of course be subject to the laws of physics. And he'll be a contingent being.

And consider the problems involved in having a very, very large brain. It would seem that processing power increases as a function of the number of nodes in the neural network. But notice how slowly light travels from one end of a galaxy to another. Information cannot move around in this brain very quickly. 53,000 years for a signal to travel just from one end of our galaxy to the other. Not to mention that very large objects with lots of matter packed in a small space tend to suffer the effects of gravity.

Vast intelligences might be able to develop in the universe. But God? No.

God is thought by many not to be a being among beings at all.

God, to be God, has to be that which ultimately grounds the physical universe, and cannot be a mere temporary and limited something emerging in time within it.

I don't think there will be no upper bound with technological development. It will be limited by whatever is possible by the laws of physics. If we don't destroy ourselves first, it would seem that we are not far away from developing generalized artificial superintelligence. When this happens, it is likely that it will quickly develop all useful technological capabilities developed to the laws of physics that could ever be discovered, and we would just sit at that ceiling. Maybe some super hard problems that require incomprehensible amounts of computation or resources may take longer, but, for the most part, new developments will stop.

However, maybe with just a little bit more technological advancement than where we are at, we understand what is going on in the brain and how it contains consciousness. Then, maybe, we learn how to transfer our consciousness to machines. Then, there are many practical reasons it makes sense to move our civilization into a virtualized world. Currently we are devouring enormous amount of resources to keep billions of humans comfortable while killing off our planet, dealing with the unpleasant limits of our biology such as health problems, dealing with limits to what we can have due to exorbitant costs of luxuries and pesky limits of the laws of physics, etc. If we become virtualized, all these issues go away as we only need to keep a computer running somewhere in the universe, and we live in a "magical" universe that allows us whatever we want that we can imagine.

I suggest that this could be the reason why we have not detected advanced civilizations, as they would likely want to keep that computer well hidden to protect themselves.

With a virtualized environment like this, would it be a lot like this singularity?

I would think it would qualify as a singularity event.

Allow me to restate the series of events you've laid out.

1.) We build neurotechnological interfaces which allow us to transfer our consciousness to machines.
2.) We build a super internet of interconnected minds in virtual reality.
3.) Our entire civilization becomes an otaku and refuses to leave its room.

Honestly...I can see this happening...

It seems like every time a concept of God is brought forth, it is immediately ridiculed by use of the stereotypical "man in the sky" trope. There are more than one conceptions of God.

But God is perfect and it would be an imperfection to have not existed for some time. — Bartricks

Good point but I was focusing more on 3, what I consider essential, attributes of God viz. omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence (SPB).

Also I don't think we can ever prove the existence of the religious God. The God of the future I described above seems more realistic.

An omniscient being may be able to do the impossible.

immediately ridiculed by use of the stereotypical "man in the sky" — Tzeentch

What do you mean?

singularity event. — Pathogen

Correct. What wonders may arise...

All these things commonly attributed to God (or whatever name one would like to use), like omniscience, omnipotence, etc., belong to a conception of God that views God as a conscious being that is constantly pulling all the strings in the universe.

This concept then gets attacked by ridiculous arguments like:

But God is perfect and it would be an imperfection to have not existed for some time. So any god that comes into being won't qualify as God. — Bartricks

or

"If God is omnipotent, how come he cannot create an object he himself cannot move?"

or

"God created an imperfect mankind! Some God this must be!"

These sorts of arguments rub my feathers (the wrong way) for two reasons:

1. As though a being that is imperfect, yet has many (but not all) traits commonly attributed to it, is "not worthy" of being called God. The hubris in such a statement. Mind-blowing. If there existed such a being that has even ONE of the traits commonly attributed to this conception of God, that would quite literally change all we think we know about anything.

2. There are many conceptions of God other than the "all-controlling man in the sky". What people keep attacking is what I would call the "naive Christian" concept of God (though it is not exclusive to Christians). This concept differs greatly from other, dare I say less naive, concepts of God found among many of the world's philosophical, religious and spiritual traditions. Even many Christian theologians and philosophers shared concepts of God that had nothing to do with the man in the sky. Why? Because they went looking for the source material and came to the conclusion that what they were being taught in church had nothing to do with what all this thought was supposedly based on.

My point? Stop going for the low-hanging fruit of the naivety of the masses.

I don't know what you mean. The concept of God is the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of everything. If you are not necessarily referring to that kind of a being you should use a lower case g.

but God is also essentially perfect. Indeed those other attributes flow from that (a lack ofor any one of them being an imperfection). But anyway, omnipotence would seem to be incompatible with having been created.

The concept of God is the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of everything. — Bartricks

Nonsense.

If you are not necessarily referring to that kind of a being you should use a lower case g. — Bartricks

Nonsense.

Here's an analogy to think about:

In terms of cosmic matter a black hole is considered to have a singularity (at the core), however it doesn't alter the nature of reality. Black holes provide a unique impetus to cosmic relations but it is itself just one of many cosmic configurations. In principle, the same will apply to a technological singularity - it will provide a great influence to our lives but ultimately it will just be a part of an even greater process, evolution.

As to God/Gods, we already have those.

We also have an absolute, it is called existence. This is why there is no condition, circumstance or identity which can negate the principle of existence. And if we postulated such to exist (for the hell of it), it would be, itself, an existence.

However there's the idea of a technological singularity which, if achieved, would lead to exponential growth in technology - there would be no upper bound to what can be achieved. — TheMadFool

I appreciate the reasoning of deChardin, Tipler and Kurzweil. But I doubt that the physical universe is destined to become a god. Of course, higher technology may seem like god-like powers to lower tech creatures. But there is an upper bound to the possibilities of evolution. It's called the Heat Death of the universe, when Entropy turns all organized matter & energy (and technology) into foggy Chaos.

However, I have a theory that the final dispersion of physical reality will merely return the contents of this world back to the metaphysical Prime Mover that created it. From Alpha to Omega and back again to Alpha. That hypothesis is based on my understanding that all energy & matter in the world is essentially immaterial Information, similar to the virtual (unreal) particles (mathematical definitions) in a quantum field. Maybe, someday, I'll write a book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

clever replies.

My point? Stop going for the low-hanging fruit of the naivety of the masses. — Tzeentch

Great Advice. I was simply using the "standard" definition of God which, as you have shown, is subject to "ridicule" if paradoxes and contradictions can be called as such.

Also I'm made to believe that the "Christian" God you refer to has wide appeal among the faithful. Am I wrong?

Can you point me in the direction of a God definition that is better? Thanks.

but God is also essentially perfect. Indeed those other attributes flow from that (a lack ofor any one of them being an imperfection). But anyway, omnipotence would seem to be incompatible with having been created. — Bartricks

Yes perfection is an attribute of God. However this God which we argue about hasn't been proven and it's likely that's impossible. Given that's the case, looking into the past for God is futile and so I suggest a different direction for our search for God, hopefully a more realistic one, and that's into the future.

Note that entropy is current theory and although it fits well we can always look back at Newtonian physics to remind ourselves that nothing in science is written in stone. Knowledge increases, theories get revised.

Also I'm made to believe that the "Christian" God you refer to has wide appeal among the faithful. Am I wrong? — TheMadFool

No, you are right. The majority of persons never put much thought in what they believe in. Therefore their conceptions are mostly flawed and uninteresting.

But, considering we all have an interest in philosophy here, shouldn't we be truth-seeking rather than taking cheap shots at the ignorant?

Can you point me in the direction of a God definition that is better? — TheMadFool

The source of being. Simple, yet it conveys the fundamental questions, rather than pretending to know the answers.

Does Nick Bostrom have anything to say about Tipler's cosmology? Anyway, there are physical limits to potential future technologies, however advanced.

The source of being — Tzeentch

That's very vague. How do you build your world around "the source of being"?

I think it is very concise. What do you find vague about it?

think it is very concise. What do you find vague about it? — Tzeentch

Yes it's concise and I think that makes it just too nebulous to do anything with it.

Nebulous is what one will get if one seeks a general definition of God. It is what most of the world's religions, philosophies and spiritual traditions will be able to agree upon, though.

Nebulous is what one will get if one seeks a general definition of God. It is what most of the world's religions, philosophies and spiritual traditions will be able to agree upon, though. — Tzeentch

Are you saying they're all barking up the wrong tree?

How so?

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that when one is looking for a definition of God that most of the world's religions, etc. can agree on, one is bound to end up with something vague. Yet, it is still accurate.

:ok: